- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Wow – Cool history. Now I kind of get the need to shout. I couldn’t figure that out. In 1977, I remember that, but just figured their shouting was to make their cause clear. Now I see why the three yesterday did make vocal response, so they would be “Duly Noted.” Thanks DJ I did notice, Mom, that Pres. Uchtdorf didn’t even look up from his paper. Of course, that this was going to happen was out there so I think he expected it. But I would also think it’s very difficult to see people in the back of the Conference Center, and if they wanted to be noticed they had to make noise. I personally disagree with the tactic, but I support their right to do so and I think they did it in a fairly respectful manner so as not to disrupt more than necessary. That does seem a bit different than the earlier ones described in the article. Well, since I was in the center and could kind of hear where the shouts were coming from, I can guarantee no one on the stand would have seen the dissenters if they had just raised their hands. There was at least one on the higher balcony in my area, and everyone looks like a tiny ant up there. I was expecting more shouting, actually, but when they shouted once, they quit. I was wondering, though, if the fact the shouts got less and less with each new request for sustaining was because they didn’t oppose to the “lesser” level callings, or if they were escorted out/told to be quiet. Regardless, thanks for the article!
I wonder sometimes the point of the vote; it’s like the Soviet Union – only one candidate to vote for I’m guessing the article was likely prepared in advance. Answered my own question. The dissenting voters weren’t removed from the conference session. http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2365694-155/all-is-not-well-in-zion Quote:Unlike in the 1970s and ’80s, when opponents were removed from General Conference after voicing “no” votes, Saturday’s opponents remained for the rest of the afternoon meeting.
Also, I tried clicking on the OP article again, and it’s…gone?
Yeah, it does look like the article at LDSLiving is gone. One link to the article is missing, but it’s still there under another link. I linked to it in a post I just did on E. Cook’s talk: http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/04/05/infinite-diversity-in-infinite-combinations-e-cook-ldsconf/ It’s not really a vote though, it’s a sustaining. I’ve shared this one before but in my orthodox days I was in a branch that was a part of a district. Some leaders came down for a large meeting to create a stake out of the district and the branch I was in was to become a ward. This branch had problems. For instance, one of the people in the EQP (I forget exactly who) didn’t believe in the first vision! You can understand how that can set off an ultra orthodox person. There were all sorts of issues with the branch leadership, the meetings were off the rails.
It was bad enough for a group of us to consider being opposed to sustaining the action. In the end I think we decided to simply not raise our hands for the sustaining or the opposing.
I’ve had a long time to reflect on that. Now it’s especially fun to reflect on my old feelings about whether the guy should have been in the EQP.
😳 The conclusion I came to was that the sustaining wasn’t to cast my vote to approve of an individual holding a calling, the sustaining meant that I would help the poor schlub
becomethe thing that I was sustaining them to be. We’re all imperfect and there’s going to be some valid reason or other for people to be opposed to
anyonethat is called. The way I see it, TSM is “stuck” with the job, he’s a poor schlub like anyone, and he needs the entire community to lift him up. As has been said, a sustaining vote is different than an electing vote. I really, really, really don’t want people elected to callings in the Church, especially at the local level. We have enough issues with a sustaining vote system; an electing vote system would be a nightmare, imo.
Having said that, I also wish we were more open to real dissent in the sustaining process and able to deal with opposition in a more productive manner. I know whenever I am at the pulpit and asking if there are any members who are opposed, I make it a point to look slowly around the chapel – including behind me at everyone on the stand. It’s the only way I can make it obvious that I take the option to dissent seriously.
Old-Timer wrote:As has been said, a sustaining vote is different than an electing vote.
A nomination would help. We just finished a 4 year nightmare with a Bishop who was appointed. Everyone believes the Stake President refused to release him due to the SP’s pride. A new SP took over and immediately replaced him.
Even before the original Bishop was called, people were concerned about it. Requiring nominations from a larger group, of existing Ward and stake leaders (such as the Ward council) who know the people, would help Vet the process a bit — SP’s often don’t know the people they call to positions, and it’s usually based on the opinions of a few people.
The other thing that bothers me are the lifetime appointments of Apostles and the Prophet. It would be interesting to see how much of the last 50 years the church has been led by a prophet who was in bed and incapacitated. When I saw BKP speaking at Conference I felt he was an embarrassment to the church with his garbled and slurred speech. His oxygen lines into his nose — does there not come a point when the health of these men matters? Are the needs of the members always secondary to organizational concerns???
SilentDawning wrote:Old-Timer wrote:As has been said, a sustaining vote is different than an electing vote.
A nomination would help. We just finished a 4 year nightmare with a Bishop who was appointed. Everyone believes the Stake President refused to release him due to the SP’s pride. A new SP took over and immediately replaced him.
Even before the original Bishop was called, people were concerned about it. Requiring nominations from a larger group, of existing Ward and stake leaders (such as the Ward council) who know the people, would help Vet the process a bit — SP’s often don’t know the people they call to positions, and it’s usually based on the opinions of a few people.
The other thing that bothers me are the lifetime appointments of Apostles and the Prophet. It would be interesting to see how much of the last 50 years the church has been led by a prophet who was in bed and incapacitated. When I saw BKP speaking at Conference I felt he was an embarrassment to the church with his garbled and slurred speech. His oxygen lines into his nose — does there not come a point when the health of these men matters? Are the needs of the members always secondary to organizational concerns???
Sorry to hear about the issue with a bishop.I do think that before too many more years I do think they will have to figure a way to implement emeritus status. I am not coming at this from so much of a “they are old and out of touch”, but more from a “they have often dedicated the majority of their life to church service and it would be considerate if we allowed them their last few years not to be saddled with the responsibilities.” Just think for a minute if you knew that your current job was going to be with you until the day you die. That thought makes me depressed. I actually like my job, but I look forward to the day when I can retire and go enjoy my kids and grandkids. I think we can find a way that they can still have some function, but spare them the embarrassment of declining in public. What is adding to that is that they are not exactly calling young kids into the Q of the 12. So with people living longer (and not always better – in fact at more risk of having issues like Alzheimer’s as they age) it is going to become quite an issue. But nothing should be done that makes Pres Uchtdorf retire
I thought this was interesting from the SLTrib piece. Quote:Braegger — a descendant of Mormon pioneers who reported contributing more than $250,000 in tithes and offerings in his decades in the church — said he filled a Mormon mission, has served in LDS bishoprics and a stake high council, and worked in the temple.
He said he began losing faith in Mormon leaders a year ago after reading essays that the church posted on its website to answer thorny doctrinal or historical issues.
Braegger said he had always been diligent about avoiding “anti-Mormon” rantings, but when he read these articles, he found himself “quickly realizing that I and all members of the LDS Church have been lied to for decades regarding some pivotal claims of our church and its leadership.”
Some people are just not ready for the essays on LDS.org and are blindsided when they read them. I wonder why some people go down the “I’ve been lied to” path and others the “that’s interesting” route and try and sort it out without doing the bathwater thing.
Like I say no point in voting/sustaining if someone else has chosen already.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.